About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
will say, however, that the value of doing it now in a low interest rate environment is larger on these new loans for two reasons. the lower the interest rate, the faster the amortization of the principal. therefore, this will be a more valuable change. second, because these loans are so low interest rate, they will be on our books far longer. not many loans in the past have hit that limit. even though it is $1 trillion, the value of the change is small for the old loans. it is going to be valuable for these newer, very low interest rate loans. >> briefly two more questions. i see that f.h.a. is now making loans to people who three years ago were foreclosed upon. and that is a very different standard than even exists at fannie and freddie. why are you doing that? put this is another area where we are working on changes. responsible hone owners got good credit scores that lost their jobs. we believe somebody can show that they are back to work and a responsible borer again. that is someone we would work with. i would agree that our standards are not clear enough in dividing those. so what we
by the american people and your businesses and economic environment worldwide. through that. john engler -- he and i philosophically don't agree on much -- \[laughter] >> i'm just being honest about john, he is a great politician and comes from the other party, but john is exactly right when he says that the only thing that debt ceiling for is to destroy your credit rating. so i want to send a very clear message to people here. we are not going to play that game next year. if congress in any way suggests that they are going to tie negotiations to debt ceiling votes and take us to the brink of default once again as part of a budget negotiation, which by the way, we have never done in our history until we did it last year, i will not play that game. we have to break that habit before it starts. so, with that, let me just say, we have one path where we resolve it fairly quickly. cuts. we reform our entitlements. increases. you get business certainty and you do what you do best, innovate, hire workers, make profits, do well by your shareholders and grow america and we have open-running room next y
economic growth. regulation is necessary to protest at -- to protect our environment and keep our food safe. but regulations cost money to follow. the more expensive a regulation, the less money a business has to give raises or hire new people. we need to have a balanced approach to regulation. we need to weigh the benefit of any given regulation against the impact it will have on job creation. that is why we should implement something like senator paul's act, so that congress that's the final say on it. -- gets the final say on it. [applause] getting control of our debt. it is critically important. it is not enough. we need to do more. we should expand our domestic energy industry. american innovation has given us access to massive new deposits of oil and natural gas, making america one of the most energy- rich countries on the planet. this new energy opens all kinds of new middle-class jobs come from the fields and platforms woodrow, to the manufacturing plants that return to the united states with a lower cost of energy, and these are the types of jobs we need most, right now. middle-cla
to implement. i will say, however, that the value of doing it now in a low interest rate environment is substantially larger on these new loans for two reasons. the lower the interest rate, the faster the amortization of the principal and therefore this will be a more valuable change. second because these loans are so low interest rate, they will be on our books far larger. frankly, not many loans in the past have hit that limit. so even though it's $1 trillion portfolio, the value of that change is quite small for the old loans. it's really going to be quite valuable for these newer very low interest rate loans. >> i'll be briefly two more questions. i see that f.h.a. is now making loans to people who three years ago were foreclosed upon. and that's a very different standard than even exists at fannie and freddie. i don't understand. why are you doing that? >> this is another area where we are working on changes. here's the issue. we have a significant number of homeowners that were responsible homeowners, had good credit scores that lost their jobs in the biggest economic crisis th
what the traffic will bear, but the political environment, the culture on the hill will accommodate. >> dave camp and sander levin cut a deal? >> begin the process and try to confer. if there is a new revenue source, carbon tax, some sort of consumption tax, it will emerge out of their common frustration that they cannot get where they need to go. what we need to do is do not micromanage, don't be prescriptive. give them a number, a ratio of expenditure reductions to tax reform, revenue enhancements, and if that task falls to the -- and give them that task this fall to the committee and over the next six or nine months, task them to meet those numbers. i think the capability is there to do it. it may not be rostenkowski and packwood, but if there is a will, they will get the job done. >> i do not think it is credible to kick the can down the road that far at this point. i think the reaction in the real economy would be devastating. you have to imagine what you are suggesting, vic, which is a good suggestion in the context of doing something now and whether that something is betting
and take. in that environment, commonplace is essential. it -- if you go through the last campaign, it is not that big of an area. compromise is required. give-and-take -- people have to accept some things they do not like as part of a larger agreement. i would say getting a comprehensive agreement now that resolve's many of these issues would at least reduce the constant threat of government shutdown. that is why this is so important going forward. >> i would remind everybody we have threats of government shut down in the past -- the famous showdown with newt gingrich and clinton. when you have divided government, you have clashes of major philosophical difference. the key is being able to have an element of compromise as part of that process. that is exactly the place we are in right now, trying to find that point. >> the best model for all of you who are working so hard on this may well be speilberg's movie about lincoln. lincoln made deals. you know what, he achieved great, great goals. it goes to the point you are making -- politicians are supposed to play politics, that is no
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)